Why do skeptics question whether the Biblical Jesus Christ ever existed?

[rogue06]

. . . but Philos is silent as to specifics of Christianity, except for other historical general records of persecution of many followers of different cults, those with rebellious motives, and anyone who remotely questioned Roman rule..

Paul is not an unbiased source,

Philo's silence regarding any of the great rabbis he would certainly have met in Alexandria and perhaps in Jerusalem has been noted for quite some time. Given this, tell me why his not mentioning Jesus is not to be expected?

[shunyadragon]

Philo's silence regarding any of the great rabbis he would certainly have met in Alexandria and perhaps in Jerusalem has been noted for quite some time. Given this, tell me why his not mentioning Jesus is not to be expected?

Based on the extraordinary and extreme events in the life of the Biblical Jesus Christ and that the Biblical Jesus ever existed. it is a severe problem that no one, especially Philos recorded any of this even as a minor footnote in their writings.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

. . . but Philos is silent as to specifics of Christianity at the time of Jesus, except for other historical general records of persecution of many followers of different cults, those with rebellious motives, and anyone who remotely questioned Roman rule, and of course Christians.. It is likely many were stoned by the Jews for a variety of reason violating Jewish laws.

Paul is not an unbiased independent source,

We know from Josephus' account in his Jewish War that some Jews were hardly averse to killing one another.

As for this supposed death of Stephen [English version of a Greek name] if such an event occurred it might well have been a lynching or some other extra-judicial killing, as was the execution of James, ordered by the then High Priest acting ultra vires.

[rogue06]

Based on the extraordinary and extreme events in the life of the Biblical Jesus Christ and that the Biblical Jesus ever existed. it is a severe problem that no one, especially Philos recorded any of this even as a minor footnote in their writings.

Would you care to place a wager on the accuracy of that claim?


And again, why "especially Philos" given that he never talked about contemporary religious teachers.

[tabibito]

The bold is a dodge in huge proportions. It actually justifies the evidence from the historical perspective that the historical Jesus was a minor figure, one of several messianic rebels at the time that rebelled or advocated rebellion, claimed to be the King of the Jews, were tried by Rome and convicted of rebellion against Rome and crucified. What the failure of Philo to make even a footnote of the existence of the Biblical Jesus Christ brings seriously to doubt the accounts of the life of a miracle working Jesus Christ, large following. and the events such as the earthquake and the unexplained darkness described in the Gospels. By the evidence the Gospel accounts represent an evolved exaggerated Christology in the New Testament.

The concept of the evolved exaggerated Christology complete with miracles fits theme that commonly occurs occurs after the death of many historical figures after their death.

? Am I supposed to think that Jesus was considered a major figure during his own lifetime?

As to the rest - the question remains. Where in Philo's works would a discussion of Christ or Christianity be on topic?

[tabibito]

This hardly supports the erroneous claim in the OP that

Philo was there when Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with an earthquake, daytime darkness, and resurrection of the dead 'saints' took place and when Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days. He was there when Jesus ascended into heaven.

If the source makes such an egregious mistake as these, what other screw ups did it make?

This one perhaps?

He was living in or near Jerusalem when Jesus' miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. Philo spent time in Jerusalem where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. ...

Philo was there when Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion ...

Or should I say, "these two, perhaps." The claim there seems to be trying to claim that Philo lived in or around Jerusalem for more than 30 years, and from the time that he was in his teens at that.

[shunyadragon]

? Am I supposed to think that Jesus was considered a major figure during his own lifetime?

YES!!! the Bible says so as a significant part of the Biblical claim of Jesus Christ.

As to the rest - the question remains. Where in Philo's works would a discussion of Christ or Christianity be on topic?

He was an important writer, influential person and traveled the Roman empire including a pilgrimage to Jerusalem ~39 AD, and intimately related to the ruling families and influential families of jerusalem. There were very extraordinary events claimed in the NT, and no record any every happened. The problem remains that none of the records Roman nor otherwise recorded the existence of Jesus during is life nor the extraordinary events associated with his life..

[shunyadragon]

This one perhaps?

He was living in or near Jerusalem when Jesus' miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. Philo spent time in Jerusalem where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. ...

Philo was there when Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion ...

Or should I say, "these two, perhaps." The claim there seems to be trying to claim that Philo lived in or around Jerusalem for more than 30 years, and from the time that he was in his teens at that.

Actually the claim is, from my perspective, he was well traveled in Rome, held a high position in the government in Rome at the time and had many intimate family and ruling class friends in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. I did clarify the claim in terms of his pilgrimige to jerusalem in ~39 AD, and no extraordinary events nr the existence of jesus Christ as described in the Bible.

[tabibito]

YES!!! the Bible says so as a significant part of the Biblical claim of Jesus Christ.

The Bible does claim that he was a popular figure - it doesn't claim that he was a significant political figure. Also - as Rogue observed:

And even if Philo went when Jesus had an active ministry in Galilee, he might have heard of Him but why would he bother to mention Him?

If I remember rightly, Jerusalem and Judah are separated from the Galilee region: they are not exactly within shouting distance of each other. Most Jesus' ministry time apart from the occasional pilgrimage was spent well to the north of Judah.

He was an important writer, influential person and traveled the Roman empire including a pilgrimage to Jerusalem ~39 AD, and intimately related to the ruling families and influential families of

jerusalem. There were very extraordinary events cleim in th eNT, and no record any every happened. The problem remains that non of the records Roman nor otherwise recorded the existence of Jesus during is life.

Again - where would writing of Jesus and Christianity be on topic in Philo's writing?
The fact that a writer who never mentioned religious leaders of his own time never mentioned Jesus is hardly a compelling argument against anything regarding Jesus.

[tabibito]

Actually the claim is, from my perspective, he was well traveled in Rome, held a high position in the government in Rome at the time and had many intimate family and ruling class friends in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. I did clarify the claim in terms of his pilgrimige to jerusalem in ~39 AD, and no extraordinary events nr the existence of jesus Christ as described in the Bible.

The comment did not address your claims, but the claims made by your source.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

YES!!! the Bible says so as a significant part of the Biblical claim of Jesus Christ.

The NT texts were all written post-eventum. These are not contemporary [i.e. pre 40 CE accounts]. Paul is our earliest source and his authentic letters are generally dated to the early 50s CE

Actually the claim is, from my perspective, he was well traveled in Rome, held a high position in the government in Rome at the time and had many intimate family and ruling class friends in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. I did clarify the claim in terms of his pilgrimige to jerusalem in ~39 AD, and no extraordinary events nr the existence of jesus Christ as described in the Bible.

[My emphasis]

From where on earth do you get the idea that an aristocratic Alexandrian Jew "held a high position in the government in Rome"? Are you another one who posts here who has no idea how Roman provinces were governed under the principate?

[shunyadragon]

The NT texts were all written post-eventum. These are not contemporary [i.e. pre 40 CE accounts]. Paul is our earliest source and his authentic letters are generally dated to the early 50s CE


[My emphasis]

From where on earth do you get the idea that an aristocratic Alexandrian Jew "held a high position in the government in Rome"? Are you another one who posts here who has no idea how Roman provinces were governed under the principate?

I probably should of reworded it better as the influence of Philo in Rome as a negociating ambassador to Rome concerning the plight of the Jews of Alexandria, and his brother acting as Afarbarach responsible for customs ambassador for Rome.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Alabarch

At some unknown date, Alexander was appointed Alabarch of Alexandria. The alabarch was a magistrate responsible for customs in Alexandria.^[6][7] Later Alexander became an administrator for the extensive land estates in Egypt, owned by Antonia Minor. Antonia Minor was a Roman noblewoman, who was the niece of Emperor Augustus and the youngest daughter of the triumvir Mark Antony. Alexander had been a long-time friend of Antonia Minor's youngest child, the future Emperor Claudius.^{[citation needed]}

As an indication of Alexander's great wealth, he had nine gates at the Second Temple in Jerusalem "overlaid with massive plates of silver and gold." (War, 5.205)^[8]

In around 32-35 AD, the Herodian Agrippa I was indebted to Rome for 300,000 pieces of silver. (Evans, pp. 578–9) Agrippa escaped Judea and sailed to Alexandria to beg Alexander to loan him 200,000 drachmas. Alexander refused to give the money directly to Agrippa, but agreed to loan Agrippa's wife Cypros the money because Alexander "marvelled at her love of her husband and all her other good qualities." (Antiquities, 18.159-160)

Sometime between 37 and 41 AD, the Emperor Caligula ordered Alexander to be imprisoned in Rome for an unknown reason. This could be connected to Philo's embassy to Caligula in Rome in 39/40. After the death of Caligula in 41, his paternal uncle Claudius became Emperor and he immediately released Alexander from prison. Josephus wrote that Alexander was "an old friend of [Claudius], who had acted as guardian for his mother Antonia." (Antiquities, 19.276)

© Copyright Original Source

My bad . . .

[seer]

Based on the extraordinary and extreme events in the life of the Biblical Jesus Christ and that the Biblical Jesus ever existed. it is a severe problem that no one, especially Philos recorded any of this even as a minor footnote in their writings.

Your religion certainly believes He existed:

https://bahaiteachings.org/who-is-christ-to-bahais/

Who, then, is Jesus? According to the Bible He is the Son of Man, the Son of God, Lord, Prophet, Messenger, Teacher, Servant, Savior, Apostle, and High Priest. So the above-quoted Bible verses demonstrate the Baha’i explanation that in various circumstances the Manifestations of God identify themselves by different names and stations – even the station of divinity and Godhead:

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare, ‘I am God!’ He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world…”

[rogue06]

YES!!! the Bible says so as a significant part of the Biblical claim of Jesus Christ.



He was an important writer, influential person and traveled the Roman empire including a pilgrimage to Jerusalem ~39 AD

If your date is accurate then so much for the claim made by the OP source

Philo was there when Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with an earthquake, daytime darkness, and resurrection of the dead 'saints' took place and when Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days. He was there when Jesus ascended into heaven.

He was not there during Jesus' lifetime.

[tabibito]

. . . but Philos is silent as to specifics of Christianity at the time of Jesus, except for other historical general records of persecution of many followers of different cults, those with rebellious motives, and anyone who remotely questioned Roman rule, and of course Christians.. It is likely many were stoned by the Jews for a variety of reason violating Jewish laws.

Paul is not an unbiased independent source,

Nor it seems was Philo, going by a write up on Patheos (and by your own assessments).

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rollto...ury-fridays-4/

Indeed, Philo did not write about Jesus’ life, his execution, his death, or his resurrection. Part of me thinks Philo would have found the notion of an Incarnation unpalatable in the first place, like just from a philosophical standpoint. His god would not ever take human form and wolf down fish in front of his shocked followers like some peasant.

In Philo’s handling, the physical events of the Torah all become spiritualized, allegorical calls to the human condition. The Messiah himself isn’t even a physical person to Philo. Instead, it’s an “incorporeal” manifestation of the Logos. (See here, XIV. (60).)

However, Philo also did not write a word about any of Jesus’ supposed disciples and apostles. So he never mentions any of the miracles we hear about in Acts, either. He doesn’t mention the existence of the many hundreds of Christians who must have been floating around — remember that supposed bunch of 500 totes-for-realsies “witnesses” who totally saw Jesus float up into the sky? Or how the whole city of Jerusalem supposedly knew about Jesus’ death?

I'm sure that if Philo had written anything where the context would logically lead to an expectation that Jesus would be mentioned, it would have been stated by now. Not a dicky-bird.
If this particular write-up is accurate, Philo would have had a very solid reason for not acknowledging Christ even if there was a place in his writing where it could logically be expected.

I'm not satisfied that the cited write-up is more than partisan rhetoric, but if it had any validity, it would provide a very good reason for avoiding mention of anything to do with Christ or Christianity. The reference to Philo's actual writing (XIV (60)) neither supports nor opposes the write-up's conclusions.